Debates
16 Jun 21
18 Jun 21
@eladar saidNo it doesn’t.
@divegeester
Forcing vaccinations just goes to show that the UK wants to be like China and Russia.
18 Jun 21
@athousandyoung saidDo you support the legal enforcement of groups of people being made to have, what are essentially still experimental vaccines, injected into them under the duresss that they will lose their job if they don’t?
As the right wingers are so fond of saying - nobody owes them a job
18 Jun 21
@eladar saidNobody has a right to a gun.
@AThousandYoung
As Liberals like to believe, nobody has the right to have a job.
Everybody has the right to live without poverty, the right to a house, the right to healthcare.
Even the US signed up to all that.
18 Jun 21
Here in Indonesia, we have (and have since the pandemic kicked off) to have an antigen test before flying. Currently this involves having a swab stuck up your nose, which is not pleasant (I've had quite a few of them...) but the negative/positive result is almost instantaneous. I've heard say that less invasive methods are being developed like breathing into something, but nothing out there so far. We can't enter shopping malls, banks, airports, go down for dinner in hotels etc without reading your temperature, which involves standing in front of a thermometer thing for a couple of seconds. Maybe the answer would be to have more rigorous testing in the UK, like before people enter their place of work. It isn't absolutely 'fool - proof', of course, but it would definitely help.
18 Jun 21
@divegeester saidNot in mine it isn’t when I compare someone’s career choice with someone’s right to be cared for with the minimum risk of being suffocated by an avoidable disease because some chump was too precious to get a vaccine. If they don’t care enough about the people they are caring for to volunteer for the vaccine then they are in the wrong job. With the shortage of workers in our economy there will be alternatives for them. I really don’t understand how this bee found it’s way into your bonnet.
You don’t seem to understand what has been proposed.
People working in care-homes across the UK will lose their livelihoods if they don’t comply and take the vaccine.
This is ethically corrupt in my opinion.
19 Jun 21
@kevcvs57 saidWell it isn’t a “bee” as in some scatterbrained random thought… it is the concept about an individual the freedom of choice about what chemicals we have injected into our bodies.
Not in mine it isn’t when I compare someone’s career choice with someone’s right to be cared for with the minimum risk of being suffocated by an avoidable disease because some chump was too precious to get a vaccine. If they don’t care enough about the people they are caring for to volunteer for the vaccine then they are in the wrong job. With the shortage of workers in our ...[text shortened]... ll be alternatives for them. I really don’t understand how this bee found it’s way into your bonnet.
As for you disregard these care workers how are fired for exercising that freedom, I am I little surprised. As for your claim that they will easily get another job, I just think you are being intellectually lazy in terms of the economic and employment landscape post furlough.
19 Jun 21
@divegeester saidI don't think you understand what "debate" is.
Your creation of this flimsy dichotomy and the fact that not being vaccinated increases the risk of transmission, are not defences of your approval of forcing people to have chemicals injected into them. One ethic should not be conflated with the other.
I do support the idea of NEW people to the profession being required to be vaccinated but NOT existing employees. I feel doing so is totally unethical, period.
You don't start a thread inviting debate and then have your only response to any points raised by others be a regurgitation of a bromide.
We get that your position is you don't approve "of forcing people to have chemicals injected into them." What you have failed to do is meaningfully respond to the arguments as to why that philosophical position (which everyone would normally agree with) should be abandoned in the midst of a deadly pandemic in the case of persons employed in the care of the most vulnerable to the deadly disease.
It would be one thing if you took a totally absolutist position, but you're not even doing that: "I do support the idea of NEW people to the profession being required to be vaccinated." So your ignoring other people's arguments is inconducive to reasoned debate.
19 Jun 21
@divegeester saidThe choice is to GET ANOTHER JOB rather than risking the lives of the people they are supposed to be keeping safe.
Well it isn’t a “bee” as in some scatterbrained random thought… it is the concept about an individual the freedom of choice about what chemicals we have injected into our bodies.
As for you disregard these care workers how are fired for exercising that freedom, I am I little surprised. As for your claim that they will easily get another job, I just think you are being intellectually lazy in terms of the economic and employment landscape post furlough.
They are making the choice to not take the vaccine, that’s freedom of choice but it is never free from consequences, you clearly believe that someone’s right to not look for alternative employment outweighs someone’s right to not die from a communicable disease.
Only you know why you believe that. Seems a bit bizarre to me.
19 Jun 21
1 edit
@kevcvs57
For a person over the age of 85 the probability of hospitalization from covid is less than 1 in a thousand. Perhaps people should be given the facts, then decide for themselves who they want helping them.
If you want to be overly conservative, then 1 in a hundred.
19 Jun 21
2 edits
@eladar saidIn the US, you have about a 1 in 50,000 chance of being struck and killed by a car while you are a pedestrian. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/03/us-pedestrian-deaths-rose-sharply-in-the-first-half-of-2020/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20pedestrian%20death,in%20deaths%20over%2010%20years.
@kevcvs57
For a person over the age of 85 the probability of hospitalization from covid is less than 1 in a thousand. Perhaps people should be given the facts, then decide for themselves who they want helping them.
If you want to be overly conservative, then 1 in a hundred.
Do you shut your eyes when you are crossing a street? Or do you take reasonable precautions to minimize that risk? Are government mandated measures like crosswalks and traffic lights a violation of your freedom?
19 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidWow, just wow.
In the US, you have about a 1 in 50,000 chance of being struck and killed by a car while you are a pedestrian. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/03/us-pedestrian-deaths-rose-sharply-in-the-first-half-of-2020/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20pedestrian%20death,in%20deaths%20over%2010%20years.
Do you shut your eyes when you are crossing a street? Or do you take reasonable p ...[text shortened]... sk? Are government mandated measures like crosswalks and traffic lights a violation of your freedom?
I wonder what would happen to the chance of getting hit and killed by a car if everyone started crossing the street blindfolded.
My numbers were based on what haapens after a person gets sick.
19 Jun 21
@shavixmir saidThe right to live without poverty even if you simply refuse to work?
Nobody has a right to a gun.
Everybody has the right to live without poverty, the right to a house, the right to healthcare.
Even the US signed up to all that.